Citation Nr: 18158252
Decision Date: 12/14/18	Archive Date: 12/14/18

DOCKET NO. 12-03 182
DATE:	December 14, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits to the appellant is dismissed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In October 2010, the appellant filed a claim for an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits. 
2. In February 2013, the RO terminated the appellant’s apportionment benefits, effective December 1, 2000. 
3. Because the underlying apportionment benefits have been terminated, there no longer remains any case or controversy pending before the Board with respect to the appellant’s claim for an increased apportionment.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The appellant’s claim of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits to the appellant is dismissed.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 19.4 (2018). 
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to December 1970.  The appellant is the Veteran’s estranged spouse. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2011 decision by the Pension Management Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
In October 2013, the appellant appointed a veterans’ service organization (VSO) as her representative.  In November 2018, the VSO withdrew its representation of the appellant.  The appellant did not appoint another representative; therefore, the appellant is unrepresented in this appeal. 
Increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits 
The appellant seeks an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits. 
Historically, a July 1997 decision granted an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits to the appellant in the amount of $219 per month.  In October 2010, the appellant requested an increase in the amount of the apportionment.  On her May 2011 VA Form 21-0788, the appellant reported Social Security income of $442 per month.  The appellant’s Social Security income had not been previously reported to VA.  In February 2013, the RO terminated the appellant’s apportionment, effective December 1, 2000, the date she began receiving Social Security benefits, because the appellant’s income would have reduced the Veteran’s VA pension benefits because such benefits are income-based.  
Because the appellant’s underlying apportionment benefits have been terminated, there no longer remains any case or controversy pending before the Board with respect to the appellant’s claim of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.4.  In the absence of any remaining justiciable question, the appeal must be dismissed.
 
JONATHAN B. KRAMER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Ragheb, Counsel